• A
  • A
  • A
  • ABC
  • ABC
  • ABC
  • А
  • А
  • А
  • А
  • А
Regular version of the site

Book chapter

Beautiful Workflows: A Matter of Taste?

P. 211-233.
van der Aalst W., Reijers H., Westergaard M.

Workflows can be specified using different languages. Mainstream workflow management systems predominantly use procedural languages having a graphical representation involving AND/XOR splits and joins (e.g., using BPMN). However, there are interesting alternative approaches. For example, case handling approaches are data-driven and allow users to deviate within limits, and declarative languages based on temporal logic (where everything is allowed unless explicitly forbidden). Recently, Rinus Plasmeijer proposed the iTask system (iTasks) based on the viewpoint that workflow modeling is in essence a particular kind of functional programming. This provides advantages in terms of expressiveness, extendibility, and implementation efficiency. On the occasion of his 61st birthday, we compare four workflow paradigms: procedural, case handling, declarative, and functional. For each paradigm we selected a characteristic workflow management system: YAWL (procedural), BPM|one (case handling), Declare (declarative), and iTasks (functional). Each of these systems aims to describe and support business processes in an elegant manner. However, there are significant differences. In this paper, we aim to identify and discuss these differences.

In book

Edited by: P. Achten, P. Koopman. Vol. 8106: Lecture Notes in Computer Science . Heidelberg; NY; Dordrecht; L.: Springer, 2013.